Australia comes to its senses, abandons Internet filtering regime

The Australian government has now, after years of testing and preparing, formally abandoned a plan to filter its domestic Internet. Officials now say that it will use Interpol’s "worst of" child abuse site list as a way to shield Ozzies from truly awful content.

"Blocking the Interpol 'worst of' list will help keep children safe from abuse, it meets community expectations, and fulfills the Government's commitment to preventing Australian internet users from accessing child abuse material online," Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said on Friday, according to the Herald Sun.

"Given this ... the Government has no need to proceed with mandatory filtering."

For its part, Interpol uses five criteria to decide whether a site merits a spot on the "worst of" list. Those criteria include depicting children that are "real" (not CG, drawn, or 'pseudo-images'), depicting children in sexually exploitative situations that appear to be younger than 13 years, and having a domain that has existed for more than three months.

The push for a filtering program had largely been promoted by Family First, a conservative party Down Under. In 2010, Google even chided Australia for its program, saying its program had gone too far.

According to The Age, the major newspaper in Melbourne, the government will use its powers under existing telecom legislation, and so will not need to create a filter law.

The paper added that many Australian ISPs have already been using the Interpol criteria "for more than a year," without creating slower Internet speeds, or false positives.

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is due out in May 2018 from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

As soon as the Interpol list was put forwards as an alternative, it was always going to be the realistic option. It was mostly a case of waiting a while before quietly tucking the filter away into the "never to be looked at again" cupboard.

Everyone wanting the filter is relatively happy, as it catches what they want, and people not happy with the filter are satisfed as well, knowing that its more or less out of the control of personal interest groups like the last option was.

Still one or two parts that would be preferable, such as a bit more transparency, but its a step towards a better option and more likely to be a global approach rather than one potentially tainted by local prejudices and politics.

As it stands though, its ridiculously easy to get around the Interpol list anyway. Objectively, its a noble intent, but its not going to do what it wants to do.

At mild risk of derailment, I think a greater issue for me would be that capped bandwidth internet services still seem to be standard there.

And they will be for the forseeable future, because:a) A large percentage of our data usage is to/from the US.b) Getting data to/from the US requires long, expensive fibre links.c) Our largest wholesale telco also charges huge AGVC costs to retailers, which doesn't help matters.

Just being facetious, I've been to Australia several times. None of the spiders I met actually tried to kill me.

At mild risk of derailment, I think a greater issue for me would be that capped bandwidth internet services still seem to be standard there.

Caps arent as big an issue as you think. Yes, they are a pain, and some ISP's seemingly go to great lengths to price gouge the customers, but a little shopping about and you can get all you need for $50/month.

As for spiders, I wouldnt worry too much about them. The only really worrisome one (funnel web spider) is limited to the east coast. Or about 70% of the population...

Its the snakes you have to watch out for. We have 9 of the top 10 most venomous snakes here, which isnt quite true. Its actually 9 out of the top 9. Then there are the saltwater crocs, the biggest natural killer of humans here, and the various sharks (not so deadly).

Even our jellyfish and octopii will kill you inside of 10 minutes... Great place to live, really keeps you on your toes knowing that pretty much any stick can kill you.

Just being facetious, I've been to Australia several times. None of the spiders I met actually tried to kill me.

At mild risk of derailment, I think a greater issue for me would be that capped bandwidth internet services still seem to be standard there.

Caps arent as big an issue as you think. Yes, they are a pain, and some ISP's seemingly go to great lengths to price gouge the customers, but a little shopping about and you can get all you need for $50/month.

As for spiders, I wouldnt worry too much about them. The only really worrisome one (funnel web spider) is limited to the east coast. Or about 70% of the population...

Its the snakes you have to watch out for. We have 9 of the top 10 most venomous snakes here, which isnt quite true. Its actually 9 out of the top 9. Then there are the saltwater crocs, the biggest natural killer of humans here, and the various sharks (not so deadly).

Even our jellyfish and octopii will kill you inside of 10 minutes... Great place to live, really keeps you on your toes knowing that pretty much any stick can kill you.

Just being facetious, I've been to Australia several times. None of the spiders I met actually tried to kill me.

At mild risk of derailment, I think a greater issue for me would be that capped bandwidth internet services still seem to be standard there.

Caps arent as big an issue as you think. Yes, they are a pain, and some ISP's seemingly go to great lengths to price gouge the customers, but a little shopping about and you can get all you need for $50/month.

There are quite a few unlimited plans available these days. The most popular one is $60 a month.

Quote:

As for spiders, I wouldnt worry too much about them. The only really worrisome one (funnel web spider) is limited to the east coast. Or about 70% of the population...

There's the redback too, but that won't kill you if you get antivenom in a hospital.

Quote:

Its the snakes you have to watch out for. We have 9 of the top 10 most venomous snakes here, which isnt quite true. Its actually 9 out of the top 9. Then there are the saltwater crocs, the biggest natural killer of humans here, and the various sharks (not so deadly).

I didn't know that. I hear about shark attacks every year, but croc attacks seem to be less frequent. Maybe they're just less exciting news! Maybe you're from up north Grunt, where you have crocs but no white pointers?

"Blocking the Interpol 'worst of' list will help keep children safe from abuse

No it doesn't and even if it did, that's no excuse to curtail freedom of information.

It's probably a totally useless move, and is easily circumvented, but I can't see it curtailing any freedom of information even if it was effective. Only a handful of sites with child abuse material are blocked.

You could argue that it's the thin edge of the wedge, but ISPs have been voluntarily blocking these sites for years. In fact, back when I worked at an ISP in the 1990s, we would block websites and usenet groups as specified by Interpol. It's nothing new, and no sane person missed the content.

These sites don't serve any purpose other than spreading material that is, and should be, illegal. I consider myself pretty hardline on the "information wants to be free" front, yet I have absolutely no objections to blocking this list.

It's probably a totally useless move, and is easily circumvented, but I can't see it curtailing any freedom of information even if it was effective. Only a handful of sites with child abuse material are blocked.

It curtails information, no?

Quote:

You could argue that it's the thin edge of the wedge, but ISPs have been voluntarily blocking these sites for years. In fact, back when I worked at an ISP in the 1990s, we would block websites and usenet groups as specified by Interpol. It's nothing new, and no sane person missed the content.

These sites don't serve any purpose other than spreading material that is, and should be, illegal. I consider myself pretty hardline on the "information wants to be free" front, yet I have absolutely no objections to blocking this list.

Why should this material be illegal? Why should viewing any crime be illegal?

Just being facetious, I've been to Australia several times. None of the spiders I met actually tried to kill me.

At mild risk of derailment, I think a greater issue for me would be that capped bandwidth internet services still seem to be standard there.

Caps arent as big an issue as you think. Yes, they are a pain, and some ISP's seemingly go to great lengths to price gouge the customers, but a little shopping about and you can get all you need for $50/month.

There are quite a few unlimited plans available these days. The most popular one is $60 a month.

Quote:

As for spiders, I wouldnt worry too much about them. The only really worrisome one (funnel web spider) is limited to the east coast. Or about 70% of the population...

There's the redback too, but that won't kill you if you get antivenom in a hospital.

Quote:

Its the snakes you have to watch out for. We have 9 of the top 10 most venomous snakes here, which isnt quite true. Its actually 9 out of the top 9. Then there are the saltwater crocs, the biggest natural killer of humans here, and the various sharks (not so deadly).

I didn't know that. I hear about shark attacks every year, but croc attacks seem to be less frequent. Maybe they're just less exciting news! Maybe you're from up north Grunt, where you have crocs but no white pointers?

Sydney area. But shark attacks are pretty uncommon, and havent been responsible for as many attacks as people think. Neither have crocs to be honest, but they get their fair share of tourists. Overall there are about 5 deaths per year across all those sources, so Australia isnt quite as deadly as people think.

Be fair to the wombats - they're not usually aggressive. The biggest risk from them is if you hit them in your car, it's a write-off, and the wombat will probably be annoyed.

(And for the non-Australians no, I'm not kidding - wombats are known for their ability to take out cars and walk away. They may not live much longer, depending on their injuries of course, but they really are remarkably robust. At least when a kangaroo wipes out a car, they're not going to walk away from it.)

shark attacks are pretty uncommon, and havent been responsible for as many attacks as people think. Neither have crocs to be honest, but they get their fair share of tourists. Overall there are about 5 deaths per year across all those sources, so Australia isnt quite as deadly as people think.

That doesnt include the dropbear deaths of course. Or wombats.

Yeah. Hoopsnakes are pretty wild and dangerous too.

Actually, a couple of years back I hopped on the interwebs (pun not intended) to get an idea of just how many people the funnel web spider had killed in Australia, given how often A Current Affair and Today Tonight run scary stories on <tabloid> THE MOST DEADLIEST OF BACKYARD INHABITANTS. WILL YOUR CHILDREN BE SAFE? STAY TUNED FOR OUR SHOCKING EXPOSE ON THE HIDDEN LIFE OF THE FUNNEL WEB SPIDER AND FIND OUT HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FAMILY. </tabloid>

The funnel web spider has only killed, erm... something like 27 people in 100 years. And no recorded deaths in the last 3 decades (i.e. since the antivenom was developed in 1981).

So it would appear that a good amount of our country's bad reputation when it comes to Most Deadliestest Fauna is perhaps missing some perspective.

A better headline might be "Aus Gov't finally conceded unworkable and pointless plan is unworkable and pointless" or perhaps "Unexpected outbreak of sanity in Conroy's office leads to stupid idea being canned."

I'm a bit amazed at the reaction to our innocent fauna though. I mean, sure the garage is full of redbacks, but they help control the blowfly population. Still, the hunstmen pick up the obvious ones, and they're easy enough to kill themselves (except when they grip the shoe and try to wrestle me to the ground). And yes, we've got feral magpies in the tree overlooking the backyard with my 2yo son's play equipment, but it'll teach him to be agile (or wear a helmet... or an eyepatch). And sometimes the drop bears take a tourist or two, but the media hype is always good for the local traders, who flog a snot block or two in the frenzy.

Be fair to the wombats - they're not usually aggressive. The biggest risk from them is if you hit them in your car, it's a write-off, and the wombat will probably be annoyed.

(And for the non-Australians no, I'm not kidding - wombats are known for their ability to take out cars and walk away. They may not live much longer, depending on their injuries of course, but they really are remarkably robust. At least when a kangaroo wipes out a car, they're not going to walk away from it.)

Yeah, DONT chase a wombat down its burrow. You'll be lucky to end up with just a broken arm. Their leg, chest, and shoulder muscles are amongst the densest in all mammals, and they will crush your arm as a defensive measure.

Once saw a 4x4 smash into a wombat, it shook it off (wombat that is, not the 4x3 at that point - roo bars are for roo's, not wombats) and waddled off into the woods. Doubt it lived much longer, given it was dropbear territory, but it survived that initial hit at least.

Not really a surprise that the filter, proposed solely as a way to buy the vote of the one family first (read: religious nutjob) senator that the government needed to pass other legislation, and never going to be actually implemented. Is quietly dropped after he was voted out

Just for clarification to our overseas brothers: Family First is a conservative Christian party masquerading as a political body. And the Labour party had to play nice with them to get a majority to gain power. This was one of the conditions.

Thank f*ck that the original filtering plan was dropped. Now we just need to drop Conroy. The man has no idea about his assigned portfolio.

It's probably a totally useless move, and is easily circumvented, but I can't see it curtailing any freedom of information even if it was effective. Only a handful of sites with child abuse material are blocked.

You could argue that it's the thin edge of the wedge, but ISPs have been voluntarily blocking these sites for years. In fact, back when I worked at an ISP in the 1990s, we would block websites and usenet groups as specified by Interpol. It's nothing new, and no sane person missed the content.

These sites don't serve any purpose other than spreading material that is, and should be, illegal. I consider myself pretty hardline on the "information wants to be free" front, yet I have absolutely no objections to blocking this list.

Why should this material be illegal? Why should viewing any crime be illegal?

Are you aware of a little thing called "supply and demand"? In certain circles, this material is a commodity, much like any other commodity (although, granted, it's not listed on the NYSE). The demand for this material is a direct cause of why it's produced as abusers seek to supply the demand and trade their "product" for the "products" others produce or acquire. In 100% of cases, the production of child porn will result in a child being sexually abused. Would all child sexual abuse disappear if all demand for child porn was eliminated? Of course not. Are there children being sexually abused while you read this as a direct consequence of the child porn trade? Almost certainly.Unlike viewing the crime scene photos of a murder victim or CCTV footage of someone running a red light, when you download child porn, you're participating in the crime being committed.

Viewing that pornography should be illegal, because without its audience, there would be no point in creating it in the first place.

Awkward Rabbit wrote:

Are you aware of a little thing called "supply and demand"? In certain circles, this material is a commodity, much like any other commodity (although, granted, it's not listed on the NYSE). The demand for this material is a direct cause of why it's produced as abusers seek to supply the demand and trade their "product" for the "products" others produce or acquire. In 100% of cases, the production of child porn will result in a child being sexually abused. Would all child sexual abuse disappear if all demand for child porn was eliminated? Of course not. Are there children being sexually abused while you read this as a direct consequence of the child porn trade? Almost certainly.Unlike viewing the crime scene photos of a murder victim or CCTV footage of someone running a red light, when you download child porn, you're participating in the crime being committed.

That pornography is created because the creator gets off on creating it. Child sex and abuse occurred long before photography. And in the internet age, that pornography, if legal, would be freely available and thus would not profit the creators. In fact, there have been stories here of people downloading child porn from Gnutella - how exactly does that promote child abuse? By limiting the supply, more people need to abuse children themselves, possibly producing their own videos, instead of viewing readily available footage. Finally, the most reliable studies show that viewing child porn reduces desire to abuse children, counter to common belief. So there is no rational reason for banning it.

Why should this material be illegal? Why should viewing any crime be illegal?

Children are exploited to create pornography that is to be sold to a group who enjoy their suffering.

Viewing that pornography should be illegal, because without its audience, there would be no point in creating it in the first place.

Well that would be true if it were being sold, but I don't think that is the case. And I suspect the sick people that make it actually enjoy doing so.

Mensch_au wrote:

Just for clarification to our overseas brothers: Family First is a conservative Christian party masquerading as a political body. And the Labour party had to play nice with them to get a majority to gain power. This was one of the conditions.

Thank f*ck that the original filtering plan was dropped. Now we just need to drop Conroy. The man has no idea about his assigned portfolio.

Yes, I really look forward to the day when scientific portfolios are actually held by scientists or engineers, not lawyers or economists, which is what most politicians seem to be.

Just being facetious, I've been to Australia several times. None of the spiders I met actually tried to kill me.

Then you weren't here ong enough

Quote:

At mild risk of derailment, I think a greater issue for me would be that capped bandwidth internet services still seem to be standard there.

Kind of. Uncapped (which is what I'm on) is available at reasonably good prices. I pay $30/month for unlimited (ADSL2+) downloads, but it requires bundling with a $30/month telephone account, which I'd have anyway. That's available in most places. Other providers have comparable offerings, but they're not as widely known for some reason.